So just what evidence did CrowdStrike find on the DNC server? I don’t know the answer.”Īt which point, an exasperated Stewart said to the Perkins Coie lawyer, “By the way, you need to pay him well, because he’s obviously serving you well today as you guys have your conversations back and forth.” To which Henry replied, “You’re asking me to speculate. If you “could have a better investigation if you had access to all of the equipment or hardware” would there be “reasons for not making that available that override the benefit of having a more conclusive investigation?” But it doesn’t mean that a lack of a piece of information precludes you from coming to a conclusion.” Henry replied, “The more information you have access to, the better any investigation. I want to be clear, because this is an important point.”īut would it be better if the FBI had access? “Could they come to a conclusion? You’re asking a nuanced question.
Up to the challenge, Henry proceeded to answer a question that wasn’t asked. Undeterred, Stewart asked, “Are you comfortable that someone could complete a thorough investigation, using other tools, without direct access to the hardware or equipment?” To that Henry went out on a limb and firmly replied, “Maybe.” Once it was established that the FBI did not have access to the server, Stewart asked, “Could they conduct their own investigation in a thorough fashion without access to the actual hardware?” Chris Stewart (R-UT) who wanted to know why the FBI hadn’t taken “the lead in this investigation.” Therefore, it would be up to Perkins Coie, acting on behalf of the DNC, to decide what information Henry would be allowed to share with the HPSCI.įirst up was Rep. Consequently, as explained by the Perkins Coie lawyer, CrowdStrike’s findings were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Under questioning, Henry confirmed that CrowdStrike’s examination of the DNC server was done pursuant to its contract with Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie. Present were Henry, the Committee members and staff, as well as a lawyer representing CrowdStrike and a lawyer from Perkins Coie. The HPSCI convened in closed executive session on December 5, 2017. Now keep Comey’s testimony in focus as we review the remarkable appearance of Shawn Henry, President of CrowdStrike Services, before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”). No rational person or organization intent on conducting a serious investigation would.īut that, in effect, is precisely what the FBI - the self-proclaimed greatest investigative agency in the world - did when faced with this purportedly monumental foreign attack on the Democrat Party apparatus. What if this was a murder case? Would the Smallville PD allow a private investigator and lawyer hired by the murder victim’s family to process the crime scene, do the autopsy, and tell the police and district attorney what they supposedly found? Wouldn’t such findings be subject to attack in court as coming from sources that may have had an interest in shaping and tailoring the investigative results to suit the needs and desires of their client? Wouldn’t there be legal problems with the evidence’s provenance, chain of custody, and the reliability and comprehensiveness of the investigative work that supposedly produced it? Would the police and district attorney ever allow themselves to get roped into such a bizarre, ridiculous, nightmarish, and self-defeating arrangement? Not even the lowliest local police department would agree to such an absurd arrangement. When presented with allegations of a devastating foreign cyber attack on one of the two major political parties, the FBI meekly agreed to allow CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie to do the forensic examination and, for all intents and purposes, run the investigation. And, as discussed in the previous article, that company, CrowdStrike, was to do the investigation pursuant to its contract with Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
So, instead of using a search warrant or some other legal process to perform a direct, hands on forensic examination of the DNC server, the FBI agreed to base its investigation on the findings of a private cybersecurity company. Q: Was there one request or multiple requests?Ī: Multiple requests at different levels and ultimately what was agreed to is that the private company would share with us what they saw. Q: Do you know why you were denied access to those servers?Ī: I don’t know for sure. Q: But is that typically the way the FBI would prefer to do the forensics or would your forensic unit rather see the servers and do the forensics themselves?Ī: We always prefer to have access hands on ourselves, if that’s possible.
0 kommentar(er)
